Rules vs Architecture

[Willie_Dow]

Twenty years ago I scored in the 90's on rules tests offered by the USGA, now I score in the 30's.
All this talk about match play vs medal, rules, etc. suggest that the legal community has taken over the game.
Has it also taken over the architecture of our courses?

[Willie_Dow]

Noting that this has been read 56 times without a reply, maybe I should amplify my concerns.
Formed in 1921, our monthly golf group of 30 odd have been combining match play rounds and scoring medal play for annual trophies.  We putt everything out for putting awards.  Our handicaps are calculated on a formula established by an actuarial mathematician back in the early 30's.
It is interesting to compare handicaps relative to GHIN.

Let's compare rounds played under GHIN scoring rules with the rules of golf.  How may scores are posted "within the leather"?

With the current speed of greens, and the efforts of the Green Superintendent to vary pin placements which will lessen wear and tear of greens, are our scores within the bounds of the course rating system?

Are the greens being designed today, vs the classic contours at firm and fast speeds, getting proper consideration for slope and ratings?

Just something more to think about!

[THuckaby2]

Willie:

I met you very briefly at Applebrook GC last fall... thanks again for coming out and seeing us that day!  I was with Messrs. Paul, Cirba and Goodale among others.... Hello and great to see you posting here!

Perhaps I can answer part of your question.  I am indeed a course rater for our Northern California Golf Association, and although I am a rookie this year, I am starting to "get" the quite complex manner in which course ratings and slopes are determined.

Note that green "surface" is indeed one of the criteria we judge in rating a course... The basic starting point is the stimpmeter-produced speed - that puts us into one of several categories.  After that, we judge how sloped a green is, and those are the 2nd category... Put this on a table and you arrive at a number from 1-10, with a very high stimp and a lot of slope reaching the 10 figure.  I recently did a relatively new course where every green was 9 or 10... That is going to have a big effect on the course rating and slope - making it higher than a course with flatter, slower greens most definitely.

So yes, green speed and contour is considered, and the way they are building courses today, it does make a big difference.

Another issue however, is that at classic courses like Pasatiempo or Crystal Downs... those are gonna be 9-10 greens also - the wild contours matched with today's lightning speed just requires it!

Maybe this helps, maybe not.  It continues to amaze me how complex the whole rating process is.

TH

[THuckaby2]

No you don't, shivas.  Please believe me.  It's fun for a few holes and then one of two things happen:

a) you get bored by the pins being in the tiny available flat places - the only places they can set them where the ball will stay (more likely);

or

b) you either pick up or have a 7 hour round due to infinite putting.

Neither way is much fun....  But option b) would be great for humility purposes!

TH

[Willie_Dow]

Yes, Tom, I enjoyed that walk and talk at Applebrook.  But your 7 hour round at Pasa which involved all those strokes taken on the green, would that be accounted for in a 9-10 rating?  Will you be generating a handicap which would give you an advantage somewhere else, with an identical green rating, but obviously less severe under these conditions?

[THuckaby2]

Hi Willie:

That 7 hour round never occurred, thank god.  I'm just imagining what MIGHT happen if they double-cut the greens at a course like Pasatiempo AND put the pins in anything other than the flat places.

But your question is a good one.  Unfortunately our rating only goes so far and while such putting horror would make a HUGE difference in one's score, us calling every green a 10 isn't going to mean more than a stroke or so in the overall rating.

This is a weakness of the system... as greens get more and more severe AND FAST this is going to need to be addressed.

TH

[Willie_Dow]

Can it be that we are saying "the Rules of Golf" can only go so far?
Adjustments come as we develop the game.  My concern is that it is getting too complicated to adjust to the circumstances.  Just like golf architects try to accomodate the environment, let's give them a break on the rules - which include slope and ratings, green contours and speed of green.

Willie

[THuckaby2]

Hmmmm... that's a tough one, Willie.  I'm not so sure we want the rating rules allowing for infinite putting... wouldn't it be better for architects to tone down contour, or supers to tone down speed?

I know, not so easy, the masses want fast greens and now that they can be so much easier achieved, it's a tough sell not to have them.

But 4 and 5 putts surely aren't a good thing by any account.

TH

[Dennis_Harwood]

Back to the original question-- The Rules have not been amended or modified to any substainal degree in the past 30 years-- The largest changes occured over 70 years ago when the USGA and R&A were unified(and substainally simplified) and the joint Rules of Golf were adopted--the # of Rules was reduced from almost 60 (pre-'35), with separate match play and stroke play Rules, down to the current 34(starting in '36)--

So it can not be the Rules which account for your test scores--since the Rules are the same, -- it must be the Rules tests, which are written by USGA staff members, none of whom, to my knowledge, are attorneys--or have any background in law-

The course rating system (which has interestingly enough, despite its complexity, has recently resulted in a more consistent and unified standard of rating-illustrated by seminars of raters which a few years ago showed wide variations of rating the same course based on the rating team's individual subjective view but now reflect a very standardized opinion) was not developed by an attorney, but(its my understanding) by a Physician--